Governance systems reconcile diverse interests to enable collective decision-making and action. Questions related to representation in the governance of networks are addressed in the literature; underexplored is the empirical variation in governance arrangements and pathways of representation. Complex, multi-jurisdictional disasters provide a robust theoretical and empirical context in which to investigate network governance pathways due to the tensions between democratic principles of representation and the need for timely, expert-informed response actions. In this article, we address three questions related to network governance, representation, and complex disasters: what governance structures allow for a representation of diverse interests? What governance structures provide a perception of voice to key affected parties? And where do we see variation in the kinds of structures that give voice to these entities? Using an inductive, grounded theory approach along with mixed methods that include case studies, interviews, and archival data in the form ICS 209 incident reports, we provide evidence from 10 of the most jurisdictionally complex wildfires that took place in 2017. In doing so, we introduce the distinction between macro and micro structures of network governance for understanding more precisely the pathways by which representation occurs and how representation functions in disaster networks. There is no singular normative goal when we think about network governance and representation in disasters; rather there are competing contingencies that emerge out of complex contexts. We propose four key propositions to guide further work in this arena.

Transdisciplinary researchers collaborate with diverse partners outside of academia to tackle sustainability problems. The patterns and practices of social interaction and the contextual nature of transdisciplinary research result in different performance expectations than traditional, curiosity-driven research. Documenting patterns of interaction can inform project success and affirm progress toward interim outcomes on the way to achieve sustainability impacts. Yet providing credible and robust indicators of research activity remains challenging. We provide quantitative and qualitative indicators for assessing transdisciplinary practices and patterns through social network analysis (SNA). Our assessment developed four criteria to reveal how SNA metrics provide insight into (1) diversity of participants; (2) whether and how integration and collaboration are occurring, (3) the relative degrees of network stability and fragility, and (4) how the network is structured to achieve its goals. These four key criteria can be used to help identify patterns of research activity and determine whether interim progress is occurring.

The United States’ National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy aims to achieve greater social and ecological resilience to wildfire. It also raises the question: cohesive for whom and for what purpose? In this article, we address the wildfire response goal and what a cohesive response means. Namely, we define a cohesive response as the ability to co-manage across scales for a more effective wildfire response. Our approach is grounded in the reality of the growing complexity of wildfire – both biophysically and socio-politically. We suggest that suppression and fire operations are necessary, but insufficient in the face of this growing complexity as we seek safer and effective wildfire response. Using network-based concepts and drawing from the literature on socio-ecological resilience, we consider how scales can be matched, what can and should be communicated across scales, and what this means for creating more adaptable institutions for more effective wildfire response. Survey results from 21 fires during the 2013 wildfire season are presented to illustrate relative areas of strength and weakness related to wildfire response and how these measurements can feed into processes to facilitate social learning, adaptation and ultimately more resilient socio-ecological wildfire response institutions.

A challenge for transdisciplinary sustainability science is learning how to bridge diverse worldviews among collaborators in respectful ways. A temptation in transdisciplinary work is to focus on improving scientific practices rather than engage research partners in spaces that mutually respect how we learn from each other and set the stage for change. We used the concept of Nicolescu’s “Hidden Third” to identify and operationalize this transformative space, because it focused on bridging “objective” and “subjective” worldviews through art. Between 2014 and 2017, we explored the engagement of indigenous peoples from three inland delta regions in Canada and as a team of interdisciplinary scholars and students who worked together to better understand long-term social–ecological change in those regions. In working together, we identified five characteristics associated with respectful, transformative transdisciplinary space. These included (1) establishing an unfiltered safe place where (2) subjective and objective experiences and (3) different world views could come together through (4) interactive and (5) multiple sensory experiences. On the whole, we were more effective in achieving characteristics 2–5—bringing together the subjective and objective experiences, where different worldviews could come together—than in achieving characteristic 1—creating a truly unfiltered and safe space for expression. The novelty of this work is in how we sought to change our own engagement practices to advance sustainability rather than improving scientific techniques. Recommendations for sustainability scientists working in similar contexts are provided.

There is a general agreement within the wildfire community that exclusively top–down approaches to policy making and management are limited and that we need to build governance capacity to cooperatively manage across jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, the concept of co-management has grown in popularity as a theoretical lens through which to understand cooperative multi-jurisdictional response to wildland fires. However, definitional ambiguity has led to on-going debates about what co-management is. Further, there is limited understanding about the nature of co-management during crisis events. This had led to scholars posing the question: what is co-management in the context of jurisdictionally complex wildfire? In this paper, we seek to address this question based on interviews with leaders engaged in the management of jurisdictionally complex wildfire incidents. We propose a multi-level framework for conceiving co-management as strategic efforts of individual actors to cooperatively manage perceived interdependencies with others through one or more formal or informal institutional arrangements. We then demonstrate the value of the proposed framework in its ability to organise a series of questions for diagnosing co-management situations within the context of jurisdictionally complex wildfires.